Moonlora

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that latitude/longitude are needed for moonrise/moonset and that times are in UTC. However, it omits the default behavior when 'date' is omitted (per schema 'Omit for now') and does not clarify time zone interpretation for the input date or return format details. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the optional enhancement. No redundant or filler content; every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema) and the description covers its core outputs and the optional parameter behavior. It misses the default-date behavior and time zone details, but is otherwise adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that latitude/longitude enable moonrise/moonset calculations and that the date is restricted to 1900–2100, which goes beyond the schema's parameter-level descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: getting moon phase, illumination, moon sign, and next full/new moon for a specified date. This is a specific verb+resource (Get moon phase) and distinguishes from sibling tools (list_full_moons, list_new_moons) which list events rather than provide phase details for a date.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage: it works for any date within 1900–2100, and optionally requires latitude/longitude to get moonrise/moonset times. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling list tools, though the implied difference is evident from their names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the year range (1900–2100), the output includes exact UTC times, traditional names, and moon signs. It doesn't mention edge cases or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then adds specifics. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, the year range, and the content of the output. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a simple 'year' parameter. The description adds the valid range (1900–2100) which is not in the schema, providing useful constraint information beyond the schema's description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' plus the resource 'every full moon of a year' with clear scope (1900–2100). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_new_moons by explicitly focusing on full moons, and from get_moon_phase by listing all full moons for a year.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need full moons for a year) and implicitly contrasts with list_new_moons, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral details: the year range is limited to 1900–2100, and output includes exact UTC times and moon signs. It implies a read-only listing operation. It doesn't specify error handling or return formatting, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is directly front-loaded with the action ('List') and packs in the resource, time range, and output details without any redundancy or filler. Every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary function, the time constraint, and the key aspects of the returned data. There are no significant gaps for the intended use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the 'year' parameter, but the description adds a critical constraint not present in the schema: the acceptable range 1900–2100. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'every new moon of a year' and specifies the year range (1900–2100) and output details (exact UTC times and moon signs). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_full_moons and get_moon_phase, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose is clear enough to understand when to use it: when a list of new moons for a given year is needed. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_moon_phase for a single phase' or 'use list_full_moons for full moons', so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.